Music Industry Develops Centralized File-Sharing System 241
pearljam145 writes "A new file-sharing standard designed to distribute copyrighted music and movies legitimately has been developed by a technology consortium. The system could deliver any content format to any computer, and users might even earn rewards points for sharing the files. Using the new standard, computer users could share small files containing information about music, video or other data, but not the content itself. The Content Reference Forum (CRF), founded by Universal Music Group backed by technology companies including Microsoft, is hoping the sharing file standard will be adopted by technology companies and incorporated into software music players."
The actual specification... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The actual specification... (Score:4, Funny)
They are living in a dream world. And that is a good thing.
Re:The actual specification... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The actual specification... (Score:2)
which came from here [216.239.59.104]
and its of course the famous painting from the Sistine Chapel.
Uncut conceit. Period.
Re:The actual specification... (Score:4, Insightful)
-
TRUSTED COMPUTING ALERT (Score:5, Interesting)
while ensuring compliance of the appropriate commercial terms for a given consumer - while ensuring DRM is enforced on you.
Content Refference data package can capture such information as [] what is the technical environment of the consumer e.g., [] content protection methods - Your "technical enviornment" means Trusted Computing reporting what software you are running, in particular securely reports if your computer will enforce DRM.
There is a core set of functional requirements that the CR Architecture must meet in order to enable content refferences-based content distribution and commerces
The files only work if you have HARDWARE (architecture) that meets the following requirements:
content registration
The content is encrypted/locked to your specific machine.
expression and enforcment of rights and conditions for distribution or use of content
Trusted hardware with Trusted software that securely expresses (reports) its DRM enforment policies and that undrestands DRM enforcement instructions.
description of user context relevant to aquiring and processing content
Securely reporting your Trusted Computing hardware and software (context).
clearance of content related transactions
Making payment (clearance) of the purchase (transaction).
And that is just from the first 4 pages of the first secification document. The second document defines "Contract Expression Language". That is a laguage to define DRM rules. For example the language allows them to write a CONTRACT object where your Trusted Computer SIGNS a PROMISE that will GRANT you the ability to copy the song to a Trusted iPod on the CONDITION that you first meet the DUTY of making a payment to the copyright holder. The contract could demand a payment every time you play the song, or it could require a monthly payment ro "rent" the song.
Section 5.2:
1. This specification does not specify how and where the contracts expressed using the defined profile is enforced....
2. This specification does not define the root of trust or any trust model for that matter.
3. This speciication does not specify how trust is established or validated
Yeah yeah yeah, they are trying to claim that this has nothing to do with Trusted Computing - but #1 does expect the contracts to be enforced, #2 does expect a root of trust and a trust model to exist, and #3 expects the trust to be established and validated. This crap lives on top of Trusted Computing, it is a part of the Trusted Computing chain.
5.3 specifies the contracts must support OBLIGATIONS, PROHIBITIONS, and PERMISSIONS. In particular they must support An event that represents that a monetary payment is due. It must represent a fee amount and to whom it must me paid and how it must be paid.
Now here's their Big Idea. You buy one of these songs. You can then share this song on ANY P2P service or post it on any website. Anyone who downloads this song MUST BUY IT before they can play it. That purchase can include a payment to YOU for hosting, advertizing, and transmitting the file. You become part of the "value chain", you may get paid. The copyright holder could define a fixed commission to you, or he could allow you to tack on any payment contract of your own. YOU get to decide how much someone has to pay you for downloading the song from you.
This is their Big Idea. They are all excited about "Viral Marketing". Each person hosting a file on P2P is free advertizing for the song, each person hosting the file is offering them free bandwidth to send the song.
Don't get too excited about getting paid - that part is pure pyramid-scheme. You have to buy the music then hope a butt-load of people buy it from you. Ponzi would be proud.
THEIR PLAN ONLY WORKS AFTER THEY SHOVE TRUSTED COMPUTERS DOWN OUR THROATS. Anyone without a complia
Dupe? (Score:4, Informative)
technology -1,redundant (Score:5, Funny)
Shh! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Shh! (Score:3, Funny)
The first rule of Usenet is: We do not talk about Usenet!
um... thanks for the help RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
Re:um... thanks for the help RIAA (Score:2, Informative)
Re:um... thanks for the help RIAA (Score:2, Funny)
Re:um... thanks for the help RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
Right now the tagger program is only for windows, but the author just got a grant and will be working to develop linux and os/x taggers. The libraries are all OSS and there are a few (not as good) taggers written with them for other OSs.
Re:um... thanks for the help RIAA (Score:2)
www.freedb.org (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.freedb.org/freedb_aware_apps.php - seems to be well supported aswell.
Re:www.freedb.org (Score:2)
Will check it out though!
Re:www.freedb.org (Score:2)
http://rufus.res.cmu.edu/~rufus/mp3cddb
links (Score:2)
I have to agree (Score:2)
The point is? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The point is? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The point is? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The point is? (Score:4, Informative)
If there's an online DB giving the "liner notes" on the track, maybe we can get this info onto our disks next to the MP3 or ogg of the music.
I for one, welcome any source of info about the music that I'm "stealing" (i.e., putting into a form that I can play on my own equipment). It'd be real handy when I want to, say, make my own cover of a song or perform it at a paying gig, and I'd like to contact its owners for permission. When they hide this info from me, I either don't use the music, or I use it without the proper permissions and attributions because I can't find them.
Re:The point is? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would I want to share a description only?
That's what I was thinking when I read the article. It's just silly, for example: would anyone even consider sharing book reviews from Amazon? What is the point?
Of course when music sales drop further the RIAA will blame teh intarweb and not the fact that they sign (mostly) unoriginal, boring musicians.
Re:The point is? (Score:2)
If I interpret the article correctly, if you bought a CD, they would give you free and legal files for any music player you own. There could be some value.
Re:The point is? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The point is? (Score:2)
I think Sklyarov's software was intended for the purpose of making encrypted eBooks readable on devices other than the computers. Now, with this
Re:The point is? (Score:2)
Re:The point is? (Score:2)
A central place where people could comment on pre-recorded music would be the greatest benefit of the Napster/file-sharing phenomenon in the long run.
With the radio formats encased in epoxy, and the music industry focusing on 'one hit wonders', it is becoming more difficult to get exposure to new music that you'll believe that you will like before hearing it. If people with similar interests to yours recommend a certain new title, then you are more willi
Points! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Points! (Score:2)
The principle of "share a file, get paid for your trouble and bandwidth" is sound enough in itself. But in my experience, "points" that have to be redeemed are mainly a way to avoid ever having to pay anyone, since typically they either expire before you can accumulate enough to have value, or you need an unreasonably large amount (or must add some cash yourself) to get anything for 'em.
Re:Points! (Score:2)
Re:Points! (Score:2)
Sounds like BitTorrent and Flooz.com had a bastard child. You distribute bandwidth, and in return, you get points of no value.
Gee, and when the service goes out of business, and you can't redeem your points, well "Thanks for the bandwidth"
Re:Points! (Score:2)
T-shirt - ogo, brand name name; Hat - small logo; Pants - brand name; Shoes - logo on the side, and brand name on the bottom so there's a chance to leave little brand names on the ground while you walk.
People pay for the right to advertise for another company. There's all this jokes about people walking around with "your logo here" written on them. This is just a variation of that. Now, just write it inside yo
i don't understand the value proposition (Score:5, Insightful)
Essentially, I offer spam on my file sharing connection to other users.
Because each file has meta-information about myself, perhaps I can earn 'bonus points' and get free credit to download the latest Britney Spears single.
A simpler model of this system would be "we'll pay your for legitimate e-mail addreesses of your friends to whom we can send corporate spam."
The article is light on details, but as a business model I think this is one of the worst I've read about in months. The value proposition is so low I can't see anyone participating in this.
What is file sharing, after all? (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, what the Music Industry is offering, is a way to tell people what music is good, but not a way to actually show them. It's a f
Sounds more like a banner exchange. (Score:4, Interesting)
So now I can send you a small file that will allow you to get an album or movie after you pay for it. Exactly how is this different from me linking you to say amazon with my referer number?
Sure if you can get a lot of people to take note of your recommendations you could make some money perhaps but this type of stuff has existed for years.
Oh well. NEXT
clearly out of touch (Score:3, Insightful)
*Bzzzt* Sorry, try again please.
How about a closed P2P network that you pay a monthly fee to access via secure clients, and that network would have actual files that you could download? Nah... too simple. *rolls eyes*
Re:clearly out of touch (Score:2, Interesting)
So you don't have to register for "that crap", the jist of the article is this: The University of Rochester is doing a pilot study focusing on "legitimate music downloading services for implementation as early as next semester." However, that would eventually lead to tying in a flat fee that is automatically put into a student's tuition costs even if they do not download music.
According to Provost Charles Phelps, a representative from the Joint Committee of the Higher Education and Entertainment Commun
Centralized (Score:5, Funny)
Piracy in story submission? (Score:5, Insightful)
The real story was written by Will Knight of the New Scientist news service, for the record.
Come on now... Or was this just an amazing use of plagerism to illustrate the point in a story about fair use rights and legal music sharing (note that quoting verbatim half the story without attribution is not fair-use, at least not in the US)?
Nice troll (Score:2)
Wheee! (Score:3, Insightful)
It really just looks like they've found a way that they think will work to reduce their advertising costs.
This does not address in any way the real problems of the music industry, the copyright issues and the like, but has been hyped recently as exactly that - probably to distract the public attention from those issues.
Darn underpants gnomes (Score:4, Funny)
Step 2: Convince Congress to outlaw everything else.
Step 3: Profit
Re:Darn underpants gnomes (Score:2)
So, they're set to outlaw things like email, FTP, HTTP, IRC, various IM programs and DVD-Rs? What a deal! All in the effort to make the world safe for Happy Jack. :oD
Re:Darn underpants gnomes (Score:2)
Re:Darn underpants gnomes (Score:5, Funny)
2. Get modded to +5, funny
3. ???
4. Profit!!
Re:Darn underpants gnomes (Score:2)
2. Get the Slashdot trolls all riled up.
3. ???
4. No profit; so why do I bother?
Advertisement Sharing (Score:5, Insightful)
Advertising (Score:5, Interesting)
Less Advertising - More Spamming Re:Advertisement (Score:2)
It sounds like Spamming to me. What else does a spammer do ? And who is your "friend" - anybody whom you send stuff to so that you can earn rewards ... ?
This is nothing but a concerted effort to monetize and eventually collect tax on spam by hijacking the legal sy
Re:Less Advertising - More Spamming Re:Advertiseme (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't have credit cards with "rewards" sy
The benefits of abolishing copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine your ultimate stereo system. Don't be bashful - if it's really the ultimate, it should include a music library containing every piece of music ever recorded, and a program which can use your past music preferences to suggest new pieces of music for you to listen to. It would be an incredibly mind-expanding device, and one which is technologically not far off - but the introduction of the personal music library will likely be delayed by a decade or more because of copyright problems.
Electronic magazines; special interest news programs which are compilations of the most interesting articles from diverse sources; computer program libraries so programmers don't have to reinvent the wheel; information devices such as an encyclopedia you can wear as a pair of earrings - all of these things would be made much easier and less expensive by the elimination of copyright.
If we abolish copyright, it will be much harder for authors and performing artists to get paid. Absolutely true. Some will say this is a fatal objection. I disagree strongly.
Sometimes changes in technology lead to changes in the economy. The invention of the steam shovel put a lot of ditch-diggers out of work. And the advent of the information age is going to make it impossible for authors to retain strict control over the distribution of their work. Should we then pass laws to try to allow authors to regain that control? Absolutely not. If the authors find life more difficult in the information age, that's the way the cookie crumbles.
As it turns out, though, the information age contains more benefit than harm for authors. The process of getting published becomes as easy as pressing the 'return' key, and anyone can participate. The result will be to make the authorship process much less elitist.
We still have a challenge: how can we arrange for authors and artists to get paid? I agree that it's a challenge, but I think we're up to it. They could:
- get grants;
- hold an academic position where reputation counts;
- give live performances;
- market their recordings themselves;
- publish 'shareware';
- produce a new work and charge a publisher a moderate up-front fee for being the first on the market with the work;
- embed advertising in their work and distribute it widely for free.
We can also design alternative institutions to support artists - for instance:
- A 'book of the month club' which pays artists to contribute their work. True, without copyright you can't arrest freeloaders, but if the service is worth a lot and only costs a little, people will join it.
- People are willing to pay a little money to feel good. An on-line entertainment service which pays authors a small royalty and brags about it may be more profitable than one which doesn't.
But even if it becomes harder for authors to make money (and I'm not convinced that will be the case), the benefits to information consumers far outweigh the costs. And really, there's no other choice. The maintenance of copyright laws is just a finger in the dike. People familiar with computer technology understand that, in the computer world, "bits are bits." A piece of music, a book, a picture, a computer program - they're all just information, and the only technological way to prevent my copying any of them is to outlaw computers altogether.
Re:The benefits of abolishing copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
You say "making and distributing movies, music and books isn't cheap." Sure, making them isn't cheap [but we might ask ourselves whether this is because it REALLY isn't cheap to make them, or if there are hidden costs to other middlemen making the production process vastly inflated in terms of price], but obviously the whole point of this debate is that with the internet, distribution HAS become cheap. _Very_ cheap. This is largely what the entertainment industry is fighting - the loss of monopoly over d
Re:The benefits of abolishing copyright (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The benefits of abolishing copyright (Score:2)
As technology progresses though, the only cost involved will be time and services. If you don't print a book the only cost is bandwidth. If your PC or mobile phone is advanced enough then studio time is superfluous. Even movies drop lower in the equation than local theatre once you get cheap, natural looking CG and software that's easy enough for your average director or screenwriter to remove
I can share metadata? (Score:2)
I dunno... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's way too late for these industries to be asking us to trust them at all. For the bulk of us, I'm sure that trust is gone for good.
This won't really do much to protect content. I think it'll be just like all other protection schemes -- subject to transcoding into a format that can be used (and shared) by anything.
Pyramaid marketing scheme here (Score:5, Interesting)
If they were being honest about they could just market to the masses with commercials and have honest downloads like itunes or the like. Instead they are trying to get the masses to go astroturfing on their behalf. Expose this for the lie that it is.
nah... (Score:2)
Sick and tired (Score:2, Interesting)
Bit Torrent ? (Score:2)
sounds a bit like bit torrent to me.
Embrace and extend it , slap on some DRM and voila redmond does it again and now has even more power than it did before.
Of course if I cant play the movies or mp3's on my new computer because I havent bought the latest DRM enabled motherboard and installed a non-pirated legal version of the redmond operating system. Im not interested! Microsoft's new Motto should be
"Mi
Just a bulkier mutation of Google (Score:2, Insightful)
What about clips or something? (Score:3, Insightful)
wow, my brain is working today!
They still don't get it. (Score:2)
Its not about sharing. Its about getting what you want, when you want it. A.K.A., Now. File sharing was simply a piece to fill the void of online distributors. Look at iTunes. There is no sharing involved to distribute the files.
I'm actually glad the industries still don't get it. It means they may still be on their way out.
How is this different than, say, freedb? (Score:3, Insightful)
Otherwise, why would people want to host and share this information? Maybe they are going to give away the lyrics for free? Song snippets? Music video snippets? Somebody who has bothered to RTFA, please give us a clue!
-Rick
free content base? (Score:2)
Say what? (Score:2)
RIAA: "Here, sucker, use our system that doesn't do squat and keeps you from doing what you were doing."
User: Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha *gasp* hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
These people beleive their own propaganda. What dupes.
Gee, they must be reading part of my posts. (Score:2)
They just dont get it do they (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has demonstrated that when you give people the choice to buy music in the form they want, and at a reasonable way, people will buy. There are no gimmicks in their offering, and you simply pay for what you want.
Today, when I walk into a record store and look at the prices of CDs, I usually end up not buying anything at all, not because I cannot afford them, but because I do not think I am getting value for my money. 18 dollar CDs with 2 or 3 songs that I really want, is not a good deal in my book.
I wonder if they'll ever figure it out ... sigh
The good old "few songs out of a CD" argument... (Score:2)
No, no! You're paying 18 dollars for the 2 or 3 songs you really want and the rest of the music is free. Is this a better deal?
Anyway, real men don't buy CDs with songs. They buy CDs with "movements" [essentialsofmusic.com] *wink wink*
Re:What do you do then? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Do you then sit down in front of your computer and download them, free of charge, because you feel that they're worth having, and worth listening to, but not worth paying for? Even if you don't, I would bet that this describes a rather common mentality among those who advocate file sharing as a "solut
Re:What do you do then? (Score:2, Insightful)
Nowhere in my post did I mention any justification for file sharing, and btw, I dont (and never have) done it.
What I am saying is that suing 14 and 15 year olds is not going to solve the problem, do you think it is? File sharing is wrong period; but price gouging by record labels is only making things worse.
This is the most brilliant idea anyone ever had (Score:5, Funny)
What's so great is that it doesn't actually allow you share anything. OH . . . MY . . . GOD! SIGN ME UP!!!
Now i can make "metadatas" that say things like "Britney Speerz r0XX0rZ! sHe 0wnz j00! loolollllol!!1!!11! omgroflbrb!!111!!!1" and . . . and . . . OMG! i can SHARE these with all my friends!!!
and then, presumably, because they had that metadata, they would now have the permissions necessary to purchase her music from some online music store without getting to listen to it first! Man! I WISH that wal-mart worked that way, but they'll let just ANYBODY come in and buy music without listening to it first, or, or, they try to make you preview it on those nasty headphone things? ew?
And they don't even give you POINTS for it.
God, i love points. One time, i got like, a millions points on pac-man, and i almost creamed my shorts.
iTunes is so dead.
Re:This is the most brilliant idea anyone ever had (Score:5, Funny)
You have to aknowledge their candor though:
" Because the files contain no content, they could be distributed in any way without concerns about piracy."
I guess it is perfect for sharing the kind of music they've been pushing on us lately
Possibly a step in the right direction. (Score:2, Interesting)
It won't work (Score:3, Interesting)
Better late than never (Score:2, Insightful)
Steganography here I come!! (Score:2, Funny)
In an Alternate Reality (Score:4, Interesting)
Vivendi Universal today was among the host of media companies with record company subsidiaries reporting record profits for the third quarter. Jean-Marie Messier, CEO of Vivendi, attributed the stellar quarter to the company's partnership with the Napster Inc. Napster, a software program used to share and download music, started out as a way to pirate music, but turned legitimate in December 2000 with a broad licensing agreement between each of the five major record labels. Since that time, Napster has made agreements with 6 of the 7 largest US ISPs and OEM deals with computer manufactuers Hewlett Packard and Dell Computer to either install or give users the right to download music from the network. In the case of AOL and Earthlink subscribers, each customer pays an additional $10 a month to share and download from the network. In addition, deals with most of the top indie record labels have followed since 2000 giving Napster users the right to share and download those record label files from the Napster network.
"While we ceratinly were anxious at the beginning of the Napster "experiment", it has truly taken off. It is our hope that even more users will join the network, we are already seeing wonderful penetration in Europe." This past spring, Napster opened its gates to European users in one of the biggest product launches in history. "The network almost doubled the day we opened up to Europe. We are now seeing concurrent usage approaching over 500,000 users with nearly 100 Terabytes of files being shared on the network." explained chief technology officer Shawn Fanning. "With our improved distribution system, we hope to push on into Asia sometime in the 2nd quarter of 2004 once we reach deals with many of the labels there."
The success of the music industry stands in dark contrast to the rest of the economy which grew at an annualized rate of 1.2% this quarter while revenue among the five largest record labels was up 11% from last year. When questioned about Napster Messier replied "Napster has truly been an innovative product and has rewarded Vivendi shareholders and most other media company shareholders immensely."
why? (Score:2)
the real thing (Score:2, Funny)
here is the final solution:
1. entire music industry decides to represent music, not recordings. "recorded music is dead!" they finally cede, joining ranks of some of the best musicians in the world as improv artists. recording industry part of the music industry dies.
2. music industry re-assesses the value of the poor instrument makers, sound technicians, and studio owners who underpinne
Hey a Torrent link to the MP3... (Score:2)
I want me a Harrier jet!
What is being "shared"? (Score:2)
Using the new standard, computer users could share small files containing information about music, video or other data, but not the content itself.
What point is there in doing this? to make the masses feel like they are sharing something? People want music. Making information about the music available is fine but that's icing on the cake. The cake is the music.
The music industry just can't let go. They just can't bring themselves to do it.
They'll soon be marginalized into oblivion.
What's the point? (Score:2)
If all the content is to come from a centralized location, why should I have to search around through someone's computer for what is essentially an alias/symbolic link/shortcut/whatever? Wouldn't it make more sense to just have a big, searchable list of availible content instead of poking through everyone's computer looking for what I want?
Why this could be a good thing (Score:2)
BUT... this is a step in the digital, p2p direction from the music industry. Granted, this spec doesn't make much sense, but it could be seen as an indicator that the music industry is realizing it must embrace these technologies instead of shunning and destroying them.
"Music file sharing" is technically stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
Instead, horrendously inefficient "file sharing" systems are chewing up vast amounts of bandwidth.
It might pay for some Internet or computer company to buy out the music industry, just to get the overhead down. The entire music industry is considerably smaller than Compaq was, after all. At one point, Red Hat had a much bigger market cap than the entire music industry.
Mundane Musings (Score:5, Insightful)
I can safely say that regardless of price (including free)or method of delivery, I'm not buying anything from Brittney Spears, 50 cent, Creed, or whatever "superstar" they have this week. Its not my music. And that is the fundamental flaw in their piracy argument: They are assuming that if it wasn't for file sharing I'd be buying this crap. Personally I stopped buying CDs in any real quantity in the mid-nineties - well before napster. I'm not going to start again anytime soon. Its still not my music.
iTunes and Napster 2.0 aside, I can understand why it's so difficult for the record industry to develop a truly unique offering that we would be willing to pay for: We can't even think of one and we are the target audience. There are still compromises in those services which we would love to do without (like proprietary file formats) and the selection needs to be significantly larger.
Perhaps, instead of trying to build a new service using existing content, we should build a new service for musicians and writers where they can post new works not belonging to a publisher and get paid by a subscription fee. If the content was worthy, people would pay. Eventually, it could become the method of choice for emerging artists, thus cutting off the record industry's supply. Or we can just keep downloading illegally...
--KS--A musician friend of mine once summed it up as "All the record industry is good for now is creating rock stars. And who needs more rock stars?"
Content-free content (Score:5, Funny)
Contain no content?
Someone ought to suggest them Write-Only Memory as a better solution to the p2p problem.
But they keep the content? (Score:2, Insightful)
DRM'ed content, no surprise there...
OK, so then I can put it on my portable mp3 pla
Poor dumb entertainment execs.... (Score:3, Funny)
This is like trying to stop underage drinking by offering teenagers free O'Douls.
Can I share and sell the music I'v made? (Score:3, Interesting)
The standard looks like a big bad advertising service, it's funny that they even call this a P2P network. What about sharing other legitimate files too?
Ars Technica article (Score:2)
It's all an illusion (Score:3, Insightful)
To the music industry this idea has 2 functions. First it helps spread the word on particular music. [ie FREE ADVERTISING] It's viral marketting all over again. Secondly, it helps them reduce cost. Instead of building a search engine and maintaining the bandwidth to support the users similar to iTunes, they can piggy back off of other P2P systems and use the bandwidth of the users.
What they save in technical costs they pass a part of it back to the users through these "rewards."
In the end..this is just smoke and mirrors... Instead of all these gimmicks, why don't they just start moving towards the iTunes concept instead of fighting all the way. They are going to end up there eventually...it's time that they face the facts...
In other words, free advertising (Score:4, Insightful)
Strangely, the article does not mention at all that the content itself will be pay downloads. Who wrote this, the RIAA? Not that it's wrong to pay for something, but the article makes it sound like the industry is giving something away, which they definitely aren't.
Re:useful... (Score:2)
Re:drm? (Score:2)
Re:drm? (Score:5, Insightful)
this is not content they are talking about putting on this sharing network. it is advertising - don't get the two confused!
the last ten years have seen the entertainment industry working very hard to blur the line between content and ads. people regard movie trailers as content, some in the movie industry are starting to regard the movies themselves as advertising (for merchandise like action figures and lunch boxes, which is where the big money is).
Re:Why do we need a centralized system? (Score:2)